1) "20 school children stabbed in China on the same day proves nothing can be done to stop crazy people!"

Nope. Though it does prove that, even without access to guns, crazy people may still try to kill people. But, unlike all of the 20 school children in Newtown, CT, who were shot several times each in a matter of minutes with a legally purchased and registered semi-automatic rifle equipped with high capacity magazines, none of the 20 kids stabbed in the China incident actually died. No wonder the NRA stooges stopped referring to that story within about 24 hours of the Newtown shootings, but it was "fun" while it lasted (and before the wingnuts bothered to read beyond the China story's headline.)

2) "More guns would have stopped it!"

Nope. Despite NRA Con-Man-in-Chief Wayne LaPierre's embarassing argument that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", armed guards didn't stop the Columbine mass shooting or the Virginia Tech mass shooting (the worse in the nation's shameful history of mass shootings) or even the assassination attempt on President Reagan. But, more to the point, this 2009 ABC News video just destroys the absurd notion that "more guns would have stopped it!"

3) "You just want to take away my guns!"

Nope. But we do, at the very least, agree with the vast majority of NRA members (if not their terrorist-enabling, con-men leadership) who strongly support new gun safety regulations, such as mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, bans on concealed carry permits for violent misdemeanants and domestic abusers, gun safety training requirements for gun owners, and barring those on the "Terror Watch List" from purchasing weapons, just to name a few. Why does the NRA oppose all of those things despite the overwhelming support of them by their own members? Because they don't care about their members, the 2nd Amendment or gun safety, they care only about their real bosses: the U.S. arms industry. Period.

4) "More people die in automobiles, so you must want to ban them too!"

Nope (and we don't want to "ban" all guns, either.) But we'd have no problem with severe safety regulations and oversight on the manufacture, purchase and use of guns, just as we have in effect for the manufacture, purchase and use of automobiles. Seat belt requirements don't prevent everyone from dying in cars, but we still require they are built into every car and used by every driver. The result: the prevention of thousands of deaths and injuries each year. We also have serious licensing requirements for the use of cars, including proficiency tests before anybody is allowed to legally operate one on their own. We have universal speed limit laws, stop lights, and laws that bar drunk driving (which can be enforced before someone gets killed.) We also require that everyone purchase insurance before operating a motor vehicle. Yet few, if any (and certainly not the industry's top promoter, the AAA), cry "Liberty! Freedom!" in response to all of those sensible safety regulations. And, it should be noted, all of those safety regulations are in place for a "tool" that is designed to kill nobody, unlike semi-assault rifles and high-capacity magazines which, when used as designed, are meant to kill as many people as possible and as quickly as possible.

5) "Guns are just a 'tool'! Mental illness is the real problem!"

Nope. There are insane people everywhere, but almost no developed countries with the insanely high rates of gun violence that are found in the U.S. Nonetheless, it's clear that many people involved in violent gun crimes are mentally ill. So, what would you like to do about mental illness then? Spend more federal government money on health care? Sounds good. Require the "jack-booted thugs" of the federal government create "lunatic panels" to judge who is and isn't mentally equipped to operate a firearm before they are allowed to buy one? Would you like publicly available lists of who the Big Government believes to be insane? Or lists of which families have someone judged by the government to be mentally ill living in their households? You "ObamaCare" opponents ought to love all of the above! Doesn't sound intrusive at all!

Of course, this is just a new spin on the old "Gun don't kill people, people kill people" yarn which even folks on the Right don't actually believe. If they did, as Lee Fang recently pointed out, they wouldn't be so upset about the pretend "Fast and Furious" scandal.

6) "If not mental illness, it's video games and Hollywood movies that are the problem!"

Nope. If that was the case, the gun violence rates would be just as high in places like Canada, Great Britian and everywhere else in the world where they enjoy the same video games and Hollywood movies that we do here in the "land of the free and the home of the brave." But it's darling that you want to protect the bastardized version of what you believe the 2nd Amendment says and what the founders created it for, even while not seeming to give a damn about undermining the 1st in the bargain.

7) "'Gun Control' is just another excuse to take away my 'civil liberties'!"

Nope. Oh, and what "civil liberties"? Which ones? Where does the U.S. Constitution guarantee the "civil liberty" of the unlimited purchase and use of semi-automatic assault rifles, ammunition and high-capacity magazines? Even extreme rightwing Justice Antonin Scalia has no problem with the 1934 ban on machines guns. But, regarding that quaint "2nd Amendment Protects Us From Tyranny!" argument, how'd that work out in preventing the very real tyranny of the PATRIOT Act and all of the other civil liberties outrages that followed? Or, were you, like the NRA, one of the folks who didn't seem to care about that type of very real government tyranny, as it swept across our nation, with little or no complaint from folks like you, over the past decade or so?

Of course, if the founders had hoped that guns would be used by the citizenry to rebel against the federal government, one wonders why they expressly barredtreason in the Constitution. It almost seems as if the argument that the 2nd Amendment was meant to allow the people to rebel against the federal government was made up long after the fact in order to dishonestly justify unlimited gun ownership with no regulation whatsoever. And, of course, it was.

No private citizen needs a gun. People who think they need a gun are confusing wants, desires, and addiction with actual need. If you look at most hunters, they also invest in special clothes, ATVs, campers, and big trucks to haul it all with. At $3.50 or more per gallon, that is very expensive bush meat. Organic meat from the store is cheaper. Cell phones and/or a dog offer better protection. Be honest with yourself, you don't need a gun.

A Feminized setting!
Not even a male janitor to heave a bucket at Lanza's knees for Gawdz sake!

"There was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred
... a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm.
There didn’t even seem to be a male janitor to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza’s knees."

It's historically obvious that there are people in political power who DO want to disarm the populace. It's happened throughout history, it's happened in the United States - witness Chicago, New York, Washington DC. You personally, Mr. Delong, may not want to take away all guns but there are others who do and that is their stated goal, as per the classic line:

"Our ultimate goal --- total control of handguns in the United States --- is going to take time... The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced... The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of handguns and all handgun ammunition --- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors --- totally illegal."
Nelson Shields, Sarah Brady's predecessor at handgun Control Inc.

A great read, with the extra added benefit of the puns for the social philosophers out there to enjoy.

As for the stupid responses, I vote for the one about the feminized setting that GWN offered up. "Helpless passivity"?!? - That is what they are calling what the people who gave their lives to try to protect innocelt children did? Grrrr

Yes, Over the past two years alone, multiple draconian policies have been enacted through executive order by the Obama Administration which build upon the civil liberty crushing actions of George W. Bush and press far beyond. The Patriot Acts, the FISA domestic spy bill, the bailouts of corrupt international banks, attempts at CISPA and SOPA, actions like the NDAA authorizing the treatment of U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” without rights to due process; all paint a picture so clear only a one-celled amoeba (or your average suburban yuppie) would not see it. You and I, and everyone else for that matter, have been designated potential targets of the state. Our rights have been made forfeit.
(from activistpost.com)

This is BRADBLOG propaganda, not journalism!

(Oh by the way I got more solar panels, does the Green Brad blog OWN a SINGLE Solar panel yet? I say no, otherwise post a photo. He asks for money for Bradblog and vacations, but where is his going green at?!!!)

I get that you're angry and if you're purpose is merely a little venting, okay, but if you're also trying to communicate anything to anybody else, I thought I'd let you know that, personally, I found your comment here incoherent. Just so you know.

"if you're also trying to communicate anything to anybody else, I thought I'd let you know that, personally, I found your comment here incoherent. Just so you know."

Really? While the tone may have been a bit over the top, the substance of his post was quite clear and understandable. Did you miss how he made a list of reactions to Newtown that added to Brad's own list? Did you miss his comparison of Bush and Obama policies where Obama's are at least as extreme as Bush's (something Brad and others here have noted from time to time)?

While I remain predominantly progressive, I find myself finding it quite easy to understand and find common ground with those who use a different political identifier yet nevertheless work to see the "both sides of the same coin" poison (false left/right, liberal/conservative distinctions) undermining our nation. The PTB fear an America united on all sides against them. So who exactly are YOU serving with your criticism?

Also, FWIW, yes FTDT is incorrect inasmuch as some of the events noted predate Newtown and cannot therefore be considered "reactions." More important, and more relevant, though, is that (as FTDT correctly observes) a consistent agenda has emerged recently and the Newtown reactions seem to further that agenda nicely.

Being in favor of both gun control reform and the second amendment, I read through your post and agreed with most of it. But if the purpose of this page was to inform and convince, you probably should have made it not come off like the condescending idiots that argue on Facebook posts. Answering every statement with an immediate "Nope." will just repel the audience this page should work to convince, making it effectively worthless.

Being in favor of both gun control reform and the second amendment, I read through your post and agreed with most of it. But if the purpose of this page was to inform and convince, you probably should have made it not come off like the condescending idiots that argue on Facebook posts. Answering every statement with an immediate "Nope." will just repel the audience this page should work to convince, making it effectively worthless.

Second of all, here's why that post(and now your apparent validation of it)are lost on me.--

1.(This first point is minor but it helped get the ball not rolling for me)-- I'm a bit of a troglodyte so the increasing reliance in our culture on acronyms I do not find helpful. I don't use them much myself in speech or writing. When you wrote "PTB", for instance, I had no idea what you were talking about. Googling I found-- a. Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, b. "powers that be", c."pass the buck" and d."please text back". Looking at context, you probably meant "powers that be" but for me anyway that was not immediately understandable.

FTDT's litany seemed kinda turd acronym heavy to me. Don't feel I should have to work so hard to understand what I think are probably pretty straightforward opinions. FISA? fine. NDAA, easy enough. But between AWB turds and DSM V turds and SSRIs and ICLEI turds, I was having trouble finding enough google time in the acronym shithouse and felt I was gonna be neglecting my other crops if I took all the time necessary to hunt all those turds down.

2. Nonetheless, my sense of the listed turds was that they were a combination of reasonable, Glenn-Beck-World not so reasonable, and with maybe a little libertarian money theory thrown in.

When someone starts speaking(or when I think they are speaking) from the deep end of Glenn Beck type beliefs, I do not pretend to know how much I may or may not be agreeing with OR understanding them on any particular point or set of points. When cuckoo land makes an appearance I need much more clarification and detail than was available in that comment to feel like I have a chance of understanding where someone is coming from. Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc, often start off referring to something from planet Earth but they all have a habit of going off into their own wild projected realms.

3. Then FTDT(Free Tits Dick Touch?) had a nice quote that made complete sense to me and with which I was in complete agreement. It was very similar to Steve Heller's recent excellent posted comment on the 2nd Amendment. BUT Free Throws Disqualifying Technical not only appeared to think the ideas in that quote were horseshit(turds) but the quote was also attributed to activistpost.com. Not only do I not know who or what activistpost.com is but then the whole comment from activistpost.com is blasted as BRADBLOG propaganda! Huhhhhh????

This bit of confusion is followed by a gratuitous slam at Brad for not having more solar panels which in the commenters mind equals-- Brad's all about deception.

Sooooo LMK, if you're all clear about where that person is coming from, good for you. I'm not convinced you are but what the hey. For me the sum total there was pretty incoherent. I was looking for a better, clearer effort/rant.

As for the--So who exactly are YOU serving with your criticism?--question, I have no idea what you're talking. My intention was to communicate that I didn't understand the comment. Found it confusing. Pushing and pulling itself.

1) Most of the "really dumb responses to Newtown" that you list, suggesting that I missed, were almost all before Newtown, and thus, no matter what you or I may think of them (and whether they are imaginary or not, like "The United Nations Gun Ban Treaty turd" for example, or your Agenda 21 idiocy), don't have anything to do with the article you are responding to.

2) You are welcome to insult me all you like (and I in return) since I have the bully pulpit as an author here. You are not, however, allow to personally attack other commenters here, as per our very few rules for commenting at The BRAD BLOG. You may vigorously disagree with others points of view, but you may not personally attack them. Were I not on the road, I might have deleted those comments (mostly in other threads) for violation of that rule. But I've only just seen them now, after others have responded. But consider yourself now warned. Keep it up and you won't be commenting at all here for very much longer.

3) I do not own a house. I live in an apartment, which I rent. Therefore, no, I have not --- and cannot --- add solar panels to my own dwelling. But thanks for making a jackass of yourself not only in your response to this article, but also in your ham-fisted attempt to attack me.

If, by "Powers That Be" you mean the two political parties with their lock on governmental power, then no, they don't. They don't fear Americans at all. At least not armed Americans. In a contest of "their" arms versus "our" arms, it's no contest at all. They win. And those who have deluded themselves into thinking their collection of AR-15's are going to stop any kind of "government tyranny", imagined or not, are living in another world.

"Their" drones, tanks and rocket launchers versus "our" AR-15s and high-capacity clips? "They" win every time. Only brainwashed dopes would be able to convince themselves otherwise. So good luck with that if you are one of those dopes!

I never said, nor do I believe, that the PTB fear a united armed America. I don't believe FTDT suggests that either, though perhaps I missed a hint somewhere. Be that as it may, even if we all agree they do not fear a unified and armed opposition that does not mean the PTB do not fear other types of unified opposition.

I think a lot of the knee-jerk divisiveness over labels, word choices and acronyms does a great disservice to any attempts at unity in opposition to the PTB. Yes, FTDT adopts an obnoxious tone. However, unlike some on both the right and left, I do discern a level of clear-headedness in his/her observations and therefore am not so quick to write off. YMMV.

And I feel that you do a great disservice to the substance of my remarks which in turn makes it difficult for me to feel/desire unity with you.

One of our most common needs is to be heard. I think you are speaking to that on the one hand(in your efforts at including FTDT) and then not doing it, in apparently having no idea(and making little effort to understand) where I'm coming from on the other.

You're stubbornly insisting that a desire on my part to understand what someone is saying(and the reasons why I don't) is a "knee-jerk divisiveness over labels, word choices and acronyms."

You also seem unaware how much you yourself are embodying the knee-jerk attitude you claim to decry by castigating me for my "great disservice" when, from my point of view, you have yet to demonstrate that you have the faintest clue where I am coming from.

Are you the only one with a "worthy" point of view? Is that the unity you're speaking to?

As someone who has spent countless hours trying to find common ground with my tea party relatives and with conservative commenters here, I find your criticism vomitatious.

That you end with yet another acronym(YMMV? I have no idea) I take as either a thinly veiled or unconscious "fuck you" to me.

Keep up with the unity efforts, I'm with you there, but maybe a little look in the mirror might help, too.

Actually Brad I have to disagree with you about Hollywood and Violent Video games. I just completed a research study about the evolution of media, and its effects on modern society that is very compelling. Through out the last 44 years, there is evidence to suggest that media in all facets is had a indirect correlation to the escalated violence in recent times. If you look at the number of violent crimes reported, as well as mass shootings, you will see that those number rose consistently decade by decade since the 1960's. Also the study was also factoring content, cultural changes, as well as human behaviors as it related to social, political, issues as it is portrayed by media. Also what was more striking is the fact through out those last 44 years, the steady depiction of violence, language, adult situations, steadily increased as well.

Also I may ad, I am a first timer on this site, and I would like to say while I agree with you that there is some measure of improved legislation that can improve awareness on safety, and assault rifles, I certainly would not agree with you on your argument as it pertains to Australia and Great Britain as to not have firearms altogether. Their stringent gun laws. Although I agree that the total number of mass shootings has considerably declined since the 1990's, the number of related crimes has not. In fact as recent as 2005, studies have shown an increase of illegal gun trafficking, purchases, as well as increases in suicides using different methods, particularly among men. Prior to these strict gun laws, the preferred method was by a gun.Also in this same study, no consensus could be reached as to if crime committed by guns had increased. The number of related homicides has remained the same to this date. These findings by Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social research. As for Great Britain, there are also increases in certain category of Gun related incidents, such as robberies, gang related crimes involving Guns, as well as Homicides. At first there was a drastic decrease as a result of their weapons prohibition, but recent reports are also suggesting that crimes relating to guns is also on the rise once again.

Anyway, Brad, I agree that we don't need military assault rifles in Modern American society, but eliminating the right to have arms is not the answer either. After viewing your site, I have to say that it is very partisan in every aspect as your present your arguments by demigod-ding Conservative Republicans, NRA, or any person for having conservative views that may be contrary to your own. I suspect you like to have conservative responses on this site to serve as your adversaries for furthering your own affirmations of a narrative of liberal causes. In fact I think you more despise anything, conservative, Pro NRA, Republican than the latter would despise your views. My point is, haven't we seen enough divisiveness in this country for one life time? I also suspect you voted for Obama right? Well can't argue he has been the most divisive president in US history, and it is no wonder we can't get anything done that is meaningful to this country as a whole anymore. I am merely saying that if you want your presented views to be more productive, shouldn't you try to be more inclusive with respect, than to be partisan in your presentation? Otherwise what you have is me vs them mentality, and both sides retreating to their camps with no progress established. What about being a unifier so we all can find common ground we each other? My argument is that you just perpetuate the perception of bias without presenting a more balance argument, including the hyperbole and vitriol that we all can do without in order to have that meaningful discussion. All issues across the board have to be look at, when it pertains to gun violence, not just guns, as it is a much more deeper systemic problem that we as Americans are going to have to face without the negative political discourse that this has turn out to be, particularly as the media itself has tried to portray it to be. American Culture certainly is no exception, and it is time Americans start looking to themselves rather than play the blame game, for political gamesmanship.

I am a veteran of 101st
Served both Persian Gulf wars/MO Military Intelligence, with a specialty in Strategic Communications.
I hold a PHD in Broadcast Sciences.

Actually Brad I have to disagree with you about Hollywood and Violent Video games. I just completed a research study about the evolution of media, and its effects on modern society that is very compelling. Through out the last 44 years, there is evidence to suggest that media in all facets is had a indirect correlation to the escalated violence in recent times.

And yet you didn't include a link to it, or any hard evidence that we can examine? Imagine that. But that's okay. Given the lack of accuracy and/or intellectual curiosity displayed by the rest of your email, I guess we should just "trust you", eh?

Although I agree that the total number of mass shootings [in Australia and Great Britain] has considerably declined since the 1990's, the number of related crimes has not. In fact as recent as 2005, studies have shown an increase of illegal gun trafficking, purchases, as well as increases in suicides using different methods, particularly among men. Prior to these strict gun laws, the preferred method was by a gun.

So both mass shootings and suicide by gun is DOWN, but somehow that makes your case???

(And again, no link to the supposed study you cite.)

Anyway, Brad, I agree that we don't need military assault rifles in Modern American society, but eliminating the right to have arms is not the answer either.

Good. Cause that was never "the answer" proposed here. Suggesting as much is a misleading strawman. So thanks for offering that too!

After viewing your site, I have to say that it is very partisan in every aspect as your present your arguments by demigod-ding Conservative Republicans, NRA, or any person for having conservative views that may be contrary to your own.

Brad,
I don't have link to the study because it has not been released yet. But to simply invalidate anything I said with the vitriol you provide, is simply proving my points on your divisive stance you take on many responses to your readers. (Lack of intellectual curiosity) Yeah I guess that makes you the expert on deciding who is less intelligent than you, an elitist mentality because you determine who does not have enough intellect? One also don't need to give you links to the statistical info, when you can go look for yourself and see that what I say is true, but it's obvious you don't want to consider the whole argument, instead quote your information from ABC News, or MSNBC, CNN etc etc. Also I did provide the name Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social research, but I guess that is too much for you to do your own research too? As far as assuming that you voted for Obama, well you got me on that one! Then again it really doesn't matter, and was only trying to offer a suggestion on you can be more inclusive in your talking points, but I guess the way we are going, we are heading for more division and possibly civil unrest that continuing a narrative along partisan lines is not a unifying theme. I was merely saying that most of your site leans left, instead of being in the middle, and it was just an honest observation, that's all, I am sorry you are offended. Also you saying I failed as a Strategic Communication Specialist is pretty presumptuous statement in of itself not to mention pretentious on your part. Maybe you can elaborate by actually going through your past posts and see for yourself on what I am talking about. We live in a society where the generation of Narcissism who deem themselves superior and arrogant to anyone around them, and thus everybody else is wrong and and only me is right, only prevails right Brad? I know it's hard to look at yourself, in denial,like that nicotine rush you get everyday. You know you have to quit, but you keep buying you 20 little buddies! Or wait is that a Joint in your mouth?

Very interesting stuff. I have not been on this site for a long time, though I was a lurker for several years from before the second Bush election.

One thing I realized then, and is reaffirmed now, is you don't mess with Brad Friedman. The points he makes are pretty air tight, and the aggressive tone comes with the territory. I mean, wouldn't this kind of tone naturally be the style of any serious investigative journalist who is covering incredibly important stories that get largely ignored by mass media. So many ignorant people, so so many.

Of course Brad isn't perfect. I am convinced of the great possibility that some of the conspiracy theories are real, which Brad, irresponsibly, dismisses out of hand.

I also disagree that we can dismiss the idea that Americans owning massive amounts of guns has helped prevent all out tyranny. Yes, civil liberties are pretty much non existent on paper now, but I think we would be much further gone if people here didn't have so many guns.

Also, though it seems likely that the government could obliterate any uprising, what's the point? I mean if the government is willing to slaughter 100 million gun owners with missiles, depleted uranium weapons, white phosphorous and all the goodies we use on other nations, then these debates are pretty pointless aren't they? Let's just line up for the slaughter right now.

I am willing to bet that the 3 million enlisted military personnel and 800k law enforcement officers in this country are probably not all going to stand united with the government when it begins bombing its own citizens. Certainly, without those bombs there is no way to subdue the population if there is a serious revolt.

My point is that it is much more likely that the guns are preventing more in your face tyranny because the cost of setting up the fully fledged police state would be too high. Further, if there is a line crossed where the American people will finally stand up (not entirely sure of this since they seem willing to accept most of the horrors our government has committed at home and abroad for the last sixty years), the people stand NO CHANCE AT ALL unless the population is armed. For that reason alone I wouldn't want to limit what people have at their disposal much further than it already is.

People are so concerned about guns, which at least in theory can serve a useful purpose of protecting oneself or others, but ignore how many people doctors and unnecessary pharmaceuticals kill every year. Where is the outrage over the medical establishment? You only see it on natural health sites, you never see a story on any major media about how dangerous pharmaceuticals in general are. I am leery of anything the mainstream press publicizes, because there is always an agenda behind these gigantic corporations and what information they choose to present and how they present it. They obviously aren't too concerned about the literally millions of people our government has slaughtered abroad in the last twenty years.

In any case alcohol and tobacco destroy many more lives every year in the US than anything else, and there doesn't seem to be much concern about that so I am going to go out on a limb and call hypocrite anyone who is passionate about gun control but doesn't give a crap about the things killing Americans exponentially greater numbers.

I see. So neither has it been peer reviewed yet. You are citing and unpublished, peer reviewed, potentially imaginary study as your evidence here? You're gonna have to do a lot better than that. I see you've tried to do so, but more on that in a second.

But to simply invalidate anything I said with the vitriol you provide, is simply proving my points on your divisive stance you take on many responses to your readers.

You may argue I am divisive as you like. I'm not trying to be either either divisive or inclusive. I don't carry much about either. I care about the facts and the truth, both of which seem to confuse you a great deal, it seems.

But what's most amusing here, is that, in defense of yourself and your claim that I am somehow "divisive", the "evidence" that you post to back up your assertions is from Rupert Murdoch's Daily Mail and Glenn Beck's The Blaze?!

Seriously, dude? Those are you ideas of non-divisive sources? Are you a clown or do you just play one in anonymous comments??

(Lack of intellectual curiosity) Yeah I guess that makes you the expert on deciding who is less intelligent than you, an elitist mentality because you determine who does not have enough intellect?

Um, "intellectual curiosity" is not a measure of who is "less intelligent" nor "who does not have enough intellect". Surely you're smart enough to look that up before making yourself look foolish again here, no? Um, apparently not.

One also don't need to give you links to the statistical info, when you can go look for yourself and see that what I say is true, but it's obvious you don't want to consider the whole argument, instead quote your information from ABC News, or MSNBC, CNN etc etc.

Also I did provide the name Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social research, but I guess that is too much for you to do your own research too?

I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was supposed to go Googling every reference that every commenter made here without offering a link, as a courtesy, to what the fuck they were talking about. (Especially since you didn't have the courtesy to bother clicking on the links that I did off you!) My mistake. But thanks for NOT linking to the study you're referring to twice! It must be a helluva study! Is it also imaginary and not peer-reviewed or something?

As far as assuming that you voted for Obama, well you got me on that one! Then again it really doesn't matter, and was only trying to offer a suggestion on you can be more inclusive in your talking points

I thought my article lauding the vast majority of NRA members and the poll by Frank Luntz was pretty damned inclusive. But maybe you haven't bothered to look up the definition of the word "inclusive" either?

I guess the way we are going, we are heading for more division and possibly civil unrest that continuing a narrative along partisan lines is not a unifying theme.

Again, you need to also look up "partisan". While you're there, you may also want to look up "stooge", "patsy", "dupe" and "sucker", since that's what you are apparently serving as (and it has nothing to do with being a "partisan", by the way.)

I was merely saying that most of your site leans left, instead of being in the middle, and it was just an honest observation, that's all, I am sorry you are offended.

Not offended in the least. Especially since you don't know what you're talking about.

We live in a society where the generation of Narcissism who deem themselves superior and arrogant to anyone around them, and thus everybody else is wrong and and only me is right, only prevails right Brad?

Nope. But those who are wrong --- such as yourself, as you've displayed over and over again here --- are, in fact, wrong.

Of course Brad isn't perfect. I am convinced of the great possibility that some of the conspiracy theories are real, which Brad, irresponsibly, dismisses out of hand.

I'm certainly not perfect. But curious which "conspiracy theories" you feel that I have "irresponsibly, dismisse[d] out of hand"?

Yes, civil liberties are pretty much non existent on paper now, but I think we would be much further gone if people here didn't have so many guns.

For what it's worth, I don't think guns have a thing to do with the amount of civil liberties we either have or don't at this point.

I am willing to bet that the 3 million enlisted military personnel and 800k law enforcement officers in this country are probably not all going to stand united with the government when it begins bombing its own citizens.

Not sure about that. They did in the Soviet Union for generations, they're doing so in Syria now. And both law enforcement and the military worked in concert against peaceful demonstrators in the Occupy movement. Nonetheless...

Certainly, without those bombs there is no way to subdue the population if there is a serious revolt.

...Under what circumstances would such a "serious revolt" be necessary? (I'm not saying it would not, I'm asking what situation you might be referring to that would lead to such a scenario, because, for the moment, it seems a largely imaginary scenario.)

The rest of your comments refer to hypothetical scenarios where there are no more elections, no more law enforcement, no more judiciary, etc. In the complete breakdown of those bodies, I could see the "serious revolt" you refer to in the face of the complete tyranny you imagine has already been stopped. If it has been stopped, it has been by our electoral system, our judicial system, our legislative and our executive system, not by some guys with some guns in their houses.

My point is that it is much more likely that the guns are preventing more in your face tyranny because the cost of setting up the fully fledged police state would be too high. Further, if there is a line crossed where the American people will finally stand up (not entirely sure of this since they seem willing to accept most of the horrors our government has committed at home and abroad for the last sixty years), the people stand NO CHANCE AT ALL unless the population is armed. For that reason alone I wouldn't want to limit what people have at their disposal much further than it already is.

People are so concerned about guns, which at least in theory can serve a useful purpose of protecting oneself or others, but ignore how many people doctors and unnecessary pharmaceuticals kill every year. Where is the outrage over the medical establishment?

Well, for a start, I don't believe the toxic drugs you refer to are designed to kill people, the way that guns actually are. Secondly, while there should be outrage at the crony corporatized system of unnecessary pharmaceuticals, it has nothing do with the similarly outrageous (arguably, moreso) system of crony corporatized mass arms trade in this country. It's not an either/or thing. Outraged by both? Do something about each! I'm with ya 100%!

In any case alcohol and tobacco destroy many more lives every year in the US than anything else, and there doesn't seem to be much concern about that so I am going to go out on a limb and call hypocrite anyone who is passionate about gun control but doesn't give a crap about the things killing Americans exponentially greater numbers.

Actually, we have a great number of regulations for those things. Many rules and regulations for their allowable use. Unlike guns.

I will double check but I don't recall alcohol and or tobacco use being covered as any of the rights of the people? Guns are far more regulated then these things. Background checks are required by law when you buy a gun. When you buy a pack of smokes and a bottle of vodka, I think you just need to prove your over 21. Would be kind of interesting if we refused the sale of alcohol to convicted felons or people with known mental defects.

Thanks for your response Brad. I just want to point out that I don't disagree with anything in point #3 of the article above in theory. I believe that responsible people should have guns, not irresponsible violent criminals. Unfortunately, give the government an inch, it will proceed to take a foot.

The only thing I disagree with is the "terrorist watch list" which is a bunch of BS. Yes, terrorists shouldn't be able to buy weapons, but I don't trust the government will be correct. How many of the people in Gitmo were actual terrorists, as opposed to people detained and transferred to the US gov't by the corrupt Northern Alliance in Afghanistan?

By the way, our military oversaw hundreds of people placed in cargo crates without air, food or water, in the middle of the desert, early in the Afghanistan war. These people went crazy and died from suffocation or heat exposure. No one apparently suffered any consequences for this. Our Army Corps of engineers designed and helped build the wall around Gaza, widely acknowledged to be a giant open air prison. Israeli soldiers regularly shoot innocent people from these walls for no apparent reason other than to terrorize them. This is a government you trust responsibly regulate guns in the long term? To me it looks like a government without scruples that does not even minimally represent me or what I value most.

With regard to the "conspiracy theories," I was referring to the Agenda 21 thing. While "Agenda 21" may be some made-up bullshit, the idea that the US can abdicate incredibly important sovereign powers to international/multinational bodies is a very real possibility. A treaty simply needs the Senate to ratify, and it becomes binding law.

Also, I forget how many times I have brought up things you have written here with regard to our broken electoral system, and been called a tin-foil hat salesman by otherwise intelligent people completely capable of analytical thought.

With regard to a situation that might lead to a serious revolt, I believe that could be catalyzed by many different events. Say the US decides on a path of war with China or Russia. Such a war would destroy this country, perhaps half the world. If it becomes apparent that this is what the ruling class is leading us to, then by all means we need to take political and judicial action to stop it, we need to educate people and build a consensus against it, but if none of that worked then yes you need to stop it by any means, and I would be glad to have an armed and (hopefully) aware group of civilians to take care of business.

Or perhaps there is a complete currency collapse, not a far fetched idea if you look at how things are developing (no more petrodollar dominance in the near future, no more being able to fund deficits simply by having the reserve currency of the world, no one to loan the US money) In such a scenario, you may need weapons to protect yourself from other people who are desperate to survive. Then good people need guns, military style guns, so that the already militarized drug cartels and any rogue military or law enforcement groups cannot impose an even more corrupt system on the nation. I know this sounds crazy, but you brought up the Soviet Union. The population was disarmed soon after the revolution. Could Stalin have killed 20 million of his own citizens otherwise? Maybe, maybe not. Not a risk I want to take however.

Here are some great quotes I found on a website which support the idea that civilian gun ownership is another pillar of freedom (I don't know about everything said in the webpage, but I agree with some of it and I definitely appreciate the quotes below):

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that is good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." - George Washington in address to the 2nd session of united States Congress.

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 “Commentaries on the Laws of England.", Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court & U.S. Dist. Court of Virginia

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"For the first time in history does a nation have complete gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient. The world will follow our lead in the future." - Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935, in address to the Reichstag

At this point, and due in large part, at least initially, to your work on this site, I basically view government as fundamentally corrupt, certainly illegitimate. This corrupt body is not looking out for our interest. Any farfetched "conspiracy theory" probably does not compare to the horror of the reality that our entire political/judicial establishment is completely compromised, at least at the top of the hierarchy.

It is truly astonishing to me that you still have any faith in our electoral process, or any branch of federal government, to do anything anymore that doesn't basically benefit some corrupting interest, be it foreign government, corporate/financial, military/industrial complex or other special interest. Certainly there have been some past triumphs, but the trend is continually towards a more corrupt, more centrally powerful, more unaccountable and illegitimate government.

For example, the Federal Reserve doled out over sixteen trillion dollars in bailouts with no oversight since 2008, that is enough money to put every man and woman who isn't disabled to work for the foreseeable future. It's enough to provide free healthcare for all Americans, end global hunger, probably fix every school, bridge and road in the country. But our government is corrupt and almost nothing it does is aimed at improving the general welfare. Even if comprehensive gun control could theoretically lower violent crime (a dubious proposition in any case), I think that the government and its corporate/military sponsors would use such legislation to do bad things that limit freedom.

Why isn't the government giving us public updates about the continuing saturation of the environment with Fukushima radiation. This is clearly a much greater long term health threat to the US and world than high capacity magazines in the hands of predominantly law abiding non-psychopaths. Why so little coverage in the news. Why isn't the government publicly studying this and advising people on the most contaminated areas and how to stay healthy and keep our children healthy? Where are the multitude of opportunistic bills in Congress to do just that?

I would just point out the FDA as a prime example of everything that is horribly wrong with government regulation. Certainly there is some good that the FDA does, especially when it actually bans dangerous substances and drugs from the food/drug supply. But at the same time it allows an incredible amount of toxins in our foods, and does not require clear labeling with warnings of all the dangers of these different toxins. It also allows incredibly dangerous drugs to continue to be prescribed, despite knowing full well the dangers. On top of this, the government is planning to implement regulations which would limit people's ability to purchase non-toxic supplements. And as all of this happens, you see the person running the FDA for a few years go and take a top position at a pharmaceutical company that they previously "regulated."

Thus, while I agree with you that we can and should be outraged by many things the government does or doesn't do, I don't think it is especially wise to focus on the gun control debate and put it on par with some of the other issues plaguing the US which effect many many more people and have no upside of potentially, just maybe, helping keep the US a soft tyranny instead of what it conceivable could become.

Finally, as to your last point

Actually, we have a great number of regulations for those things. Many rules and regulations for their allowable use. Unlike guns.

On the contrary, we have universal rules regulating the use of guns where it matters most. We already ban killing people unless it is justifiable self defense. If that is what guns are meant to do then consider guns regulated. If some will break the rule about KILLING PEOPLE (think about that for a second, these people are willing to break the most important and universally accepted law that could ever exist), don't you think that person will break the rules about gun ownership if they are really determined and get their hands on high capacity magazines and semi-auto weapons. The only people who won't break those rules are the law abiding people that one would most trust with dangerous weapons.

Anyway, we have 3D printers now which are getting more amazing every year, so it is pointless trying to regulate guns. Within the next ten years anyone who wants to own a gun will just print one up and there is nothing anyone can do to stop that.

This is the last I'll chime in on this since I think I actually agree with most of what you say regarding the extent of desirable gun regulations. We obviously don't agree as to the importance of civilian gun ownership to the preservation of liberty. But that is not something I can prove one way or another, beyond to point out that other tyrannies depended upon gun confiscation before becoming entrenched and all powerful.

I just find it extremely disturbing that the public can be whipped in to such a fervor over gun control, but our government can literally slaughter people every day around the world, support dictators and terrorists, allow incredibly dangerous drugs to be prescribed which kill 100k+/year, allow the use of unverifiable e-voting machines in major elections (should be banned even in an election for the PTA president), and people really don't seem to give a shit.

Sorry about the screwed up links and block quotes in the last posting. Sort of messed up my whole deal, I'll go read a FAQ now about how to do this stuff properly.

[Ed Note: Sam - I tried to fix your formatting in the above comment. As to the content in it, you raise a lot of points that I look forward to responding to in a bit, after some other items I need to take care of first. Thanks! And thanks for your patience! - BF]

Great Hitler quote Sam. To Brads points I am sure if the guns had not been confiscated prior, the Jewish people still would not have much of a chance. I don't even want to imagine the helplessness...

Most of my relatives are still in England. A few of them in fact have written me urging me to not sit back watch my rights get taken away.

Here is some more info:

England is the most violent country in the European Union. Since the imposition of the country’s gun ban following the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, recorded violent attacks have soared by 77 percent. The violent crime rate there is 2,034 per 100,000 residents.

Contrast that with the United States, which has a violent crime rate of only 386.3 per 100,000. That’s about one-fifth the rate of violent crime in England And this has trended down since the ban on “assault weapons” ended in 2004.

In England, the weapon of choice to use in a violent crime is a knife.

Maybe government should take our knifes away? Would make eating at the steak house interesting?

Also I am hearing first hand that the cameras and tracking devices are everywhere in England now. Not just London they are including the small towns. I know off topic but I appreciate my Grandfathers guts to get out of there more and more each day.

You've included a LOT to unpack there, but let me try to do so as briefly as I can (so apologies in advance if any of the replies seem terse, it's just for an attempt at brevity. Wish me luck!)...

The only thing I disagree with is the "terrorist watch list" which is a bunch of BS. Yes, terrorists shouldn't be able to buy weapons, but I don't trust the government will be correct.

So we should err on the side of selling unlimited, deadly, automatic weapons to possible terrorists? We shouldn't require that they appeal the process, just as they can/do when trying to board a plane?

If you wish to challenge the "terrorist watch list", and I join you in that, fine. I note the NRA does not challenge that list. It only fights to make sure that the people on it may buy unlimited high-power weapons. But to say someone on that list can't fly on a plane, but should be able to purchase unlimited deadly weapons is absurd.

How many of the people in Gitmo were actual terrorists, as opposed to people detained and transferred to the US gov't by the corrupt Northern Alliance in Afghanistan?

Most of them were not terrorists. That said, some were. And I see no reason why we should make it as easy as possible for them to purchase weapons that can kill hundreds in a matter of seconds. You are conflating two different outrages, I'm afraid.

By the way, our military oversaw hundreds of people placed in cargo crates without air, food or water, in the middle of the desert, early in the Afghanistan war. These people went crazy and died from suffocation or heat exposure. No one apparently suffered any consequences for this. Our Army Corps of engineers designed and helped build the wall around Gaza, widely acknowledged to be a giant open air prison. Israeli soldiers regularly shoot innocent people from these walls for no apparent reason other than to terrorize them. This is a government you trust responsibly regulate guns in the long term? To me it looks like a government without scruples that does not even minimally represent me or what I value most.

News flash: YOU are the government. Don't like how they/we are doing it? Change it. There is a system for that. (Though, granted, the odds are stacked against you, it is difficult to change it, but it is also purposely difficult in many cases.)

No, I don't like the way the government does many things, so I fight to change it. But to say they can do nothing is absurd. To say that I "trust" them to do anything is equally absurd. That's why we have a lot of mechanisms built in for government oversight.

Btw, the government has done a pretty decent job at a whole host of things for decades. Just one related example, for the moment, they've done a great job of keeping machine guns out of the hands of people who do not need machine guns. Do you have a problem with that or the job they've done since 1934 in doing so?

With regard to the "conspiracy theories," I was referring to the Agenda 21 thing. While "Agenda 21" may be some made-up bullshit, the idea that the US can abdicate incredibly important sovereign powers to international/multinational bodies is a very real possibility. A treaty simply needs the Senate to ratify, and it becomes binding law.

There is no abdication of of sovereight powers involved in Agenda 21 to my knowledge. Please feel free to offer evidence to the contrary. Yes, the concerns about it are "made-up bullshit". So if that's one of the things I don't give enough attention to, it seems you are offering a conflicting message in the above.

Also, I forget how many times I have brought up things you have written here with regard to our broken electoral system, and been called a tin-foil hat salesman by otherwise intelligent people completely capable of analytical thought.

You'll have to point out when and where I've done that. If others here or elsewhere have done so, I can't take responsibility for that and it seems unfair to pin that on me.

With regard to a situation that might lead to a serious revolt, I believe that could be catalyzed by many different events. Say the US decides on a path of war with China or Russia. Such a war would destroy this country, perhaps half the world. If it becomes apparent that this is what the ruling class is leading us to, then by all means we need to take political and judicial action to stop it, we need to educate people and build a consensus against it, but if none of that worked then yes you need to stop it by any means, and I would be glad to have an armed and (hopefully) aware group of civilians to take care of business.

Okay. What you've just described --- a sitch where some in the country are against a particular government action, and mechanisms such as political, judicial and educational action is taken, but fails to stop a particular action --- is called democracy. The second part of what you've described --- an armed group of civilians "tak[ing] care of business" (presumably, using arms to stop the democratic action --- is called treason, and is the only crime specifically barred in the U.S. Constitution by the founders.

Such an armed action would also like fail, by the way. That said, I still fail to see a situation in which guns would somehow protect against the imaginary tyranny you are imagining.

Or perhaps there is a complete currency collapse, not a far fetched idea if you look at how things are developing (no more petrodollar dominance in the near future, no more being able to fund deficits simply by having the reserve currency of the world, no one to loan the US money) In such a scenario, you may need weapons to protect yourself from other people who are desperate to survive.

Ah, the Glenn Beck Scenario! Got it. Well, good news! You already have such a right, and no serious individuals are suggesting take that right away from you! Feel better?

Then good people need guns, military style guns, so that the already militarized drug cartels and any rogue military or law enforcement groups cannot impose an even more corrupt system on the nation.

Ah, the Alex Jones Scenario! We need military-style guns to survive the coming apocalypse! Okay. Sorry, but if that's one of the things I don't give enough credence to, I'll have to stand by that one. Any such apocalypse will be thanks to the hands of the loons with the military style guns (here's a great recent example). You are arming the apocalypse, and propagandized stooges like the guy in that video, not defending against it!

I know this sounds crazy, but you brought up the Soviet Union. The population was disarmed soon after the revolution. Could Stalin have killed 20 million of his own citizens otherwise? Maybe, maybe not. Not a risk I want to take however.

Um, you are suggesting that the people will stockpile enough weapons to fend off a Stalin-like government massacre with tanks, artillery and fighter jets? Really? So, who is the gullible one here, amigo? You or me?

Here are some great quotes I found on a website which support the idea that civilian gun ownership is another pillar of freedom (I don't know about everything said in the webpage, but I agree with some of it and I definitely appreciate the quotes below):

And here's the difference between you and me. I'm a journalist. You're an anonymous commenter. That's fine. But you've just copy/pasted a whole bunch of completely fake quotes, whether you think they are "great" or not. I don't have time to help you by citing the bogus nature of each of them, but here's just a couple.

You are welcome to read about all of concerns (Agenda 21!) and quotes (Hitler took all the guns!), and be worried about them, or criticize me for not taking them seriously enough as you wish. I, on the other hand, have the responsibility of actually looking into them and figuring out which ones are real concerns and which ones are totally bullshit meant to play on the otherwise good nature of well-meaning, if easily-duped, folks like yourself. That's what I do.

It is truly astonishing to me that you still have any faith in our electoral process, or any branch of federal government, to do anything anymore that doesn't basically benefit some corrupting interest, be it foreign government, corporate/financial, military/industrial complex or other special interest. Certainly there have been some past triumphs, but the trend is continually towards a more corrupt, more centrally powerful, more unaccountable and illegitimate government.

Whether or not I have that "faith" and whether or not government is becoming more powerful, more unaccountable or more illegitimate, I do NOT see the answer or the cure to be unlimited numbers of high-powered weapons. Not by a long shot. (Pun intended.)

For example, the Federal Reserve doled out over sixteen trillion dollars in bailouts with no oversight since 2008, that is enough money to put every man and woman who isn't disabled to work for the foreseeable future.

That's not entirely true. But let's say that it is. How did guns stop it? How are you suggesting that guns should stop it?

Even if comprehensive gun control could theoretically lower violent crime (a dubious proposition in any case), I think that the government and its corporate/military sponsors would use such legislation to do bad things that limit freedom.

That's exactly what the NRA would like you to believe. I believe you have been duped.

Why isn't the government giving us public updates about the continuing saturation of the environment with Fukushima radiation. This is clearly a much greater long term health threat to the US and world than high capacity magazines in the hands of predominantly law abiding non-psychopaths. Why so little coverage in the news. Why isn't the government publicly studying this and advising people on the most contaminated areas and how to stay healthy and keep our children healthy? Where are the multitude of opportunistic bills in Congress to do just that?

You're assuming that there is "continuing saturation of the environment with Fukushima radiation" that our governement (as opposed to Japan's) needs to tell us about (and, presumably, force the media to cover as well). Is there more truth to that presumption than the notion that Agenda 21 is a tyrannical takeover of U.S. sovereignty or that George Washington was a gun freak? I have yet to find any such evidence, though I do try to keep up with what is happening over there and how it might affect us here.

So far, I don't see it as more of a current threat to our health than the 30,000+ Americans who were killed with guns in 2011.

I would just point out the FDA as a prime example of everything that is horribly wrong with government regulation. Certainly there is some good that the FDA does, especially when it actually bans dangerous substances and drugs from the food/drug supply. But at the same time it allows an incredible amount of toxins in our foods, and does not require clear labeling with warnings of all the dangers of these different toxins.

Agree! So is your solution that we should do away with the FDA?! I doubt it. You want to FIX the FDA and make them do their damned jobs better, I'm guessing!

On top of this, the government is planning to implement regulations which would limit people's ability to purchase non-toxic supplements.

Really? Got evidence for that very serious claim?

Thus, while I agree with you that we can and should be outraged by many things the government does or doesn't do, I don't think it is especially wise to focus on the gun control debate and put it on par with some of the other issues plaguing the US which effect many many more people and have no upside of potentially, just maybe, helping keep the US a soft tyranny instead of what it conceivable could become.

I appreciate your opinion, but respectfully disagree with you. If the 30,000 guns deaths a year can be reduced, and probably rather easily, they should be, so long as it is not in violation with our Constitution or civil rights. I see no violation of the Constitution or civil rights in improving safety regulations for the sale and use of high-powered military-style assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, or even bullets.

You are, as usual, welcome to disagree cuz, after all, I like democracy!

Finally, as to your last point

Actually, we have a great number of regulations for those things. Many rules and regulations for their allowable use. Unlike guns.

On the contrary, we have universal rules regulating the use of guns where it matters most. We already ban killing people unless it is justifiable self defense. If that is what guns are meant to do then consider guns regulated.

That's both silly and specious. As (I believe) Ernie Canning noted in comments previously, we don't wait until a drunk driver kills someone to take them off the road. Your "regulation" seems to be that we simply wait until some asshole kills 20 children in a grade school, and then we throw them in jail. Anything else is simply impossible! (Even though we have, for years, done exactly that with all sorts of weaponry like machine guns, tanks, rocket launchers, jet fighters, chemical and nuclear weapons, etc.)

If some will break the rule about KILLING PEOPLE (think about that for a second, these people are willing to break the most important and universally accepted law that could ever exist), don't you think that person will break the rules about gun ownership if they are really determined and get their hands on high capacity magazines and semi-auto weapons.

Well some. But even if I said "Of course!", I don't see any reason why we should make it really really easy for them! Do you?! That would be stupid. We require background checks if you purchase guns at a gun store, but not at a gun show? Why? Fix that! Why is that a prob? Tyranny?! Please.

The only people who won't break those rules are the law abiding people that one would most trust with dangerous weapons.

The jackass who purchased 6,000 rounds (6,000 rounds! Without anybody stopping by to see why!) to shoot up the movie theater in Colorado was a law-abiding physics student. If we hadn't made it so easy for him to have bullets and high-powered weapons sent (via FedEx!) to his house, would he have snuck around in the black market to do it? Don't know. I'd love to find out!

Anyway, we have 3D printers now which are getting more amazing every year, so it is pointless trying to regulate guns.

Wrong. There is a way around every law. Since that it is true, we might as well have no laws, under your reasoning. BTW, there is way to stop 3D printed guns, much as there was a way to make the use of plastic bullets illegal (that was that "gun grabber" Ronald Reagan who did that).

You have been thoroughally played by the agents of the NRA who have spread the very bullshit that you're reposting here. While you say I should be more skeptical, might I gently suggest that you need to be much more skeptical, because you are being played.

But that is not something I can prove one way or another, beyond to point out that other tyrannies depended upon gun confiscation before becoming entrenched and all powerful.

Both true and not true. But the fact that you note it, shows how well the NRA is doing their "job" in scamming the world.

I just find it extremely disturbing that the public can be whipped in to such a fervor over gun control, but our government can literally slaughter people every day around the world, support dictators and terrorists, allow incredibly dangerous drugs to be prescribed which kill 100k+/year, allow the use of unverifiable e-voting machines in major elections (should be banned even in an election for the PTA president), and people really don't seem to give a shit.

People do. I do. You do. But it is a completely separate issue, and to suggest otherwise is something the NRA thanks you for!

To Brads points I am sure if the guns had not been confiscated prior, the Jewish people still would not have much of a chance. I don't even want to imagine the helplessness...

Well, lessee, while it was the regime prior to Hitler who banned the guns (he acdtually loosened the restrictions), how did the Soviet Union do with their millions of men, tanks, figher jets and artillery against Hitler? What? They lost 7 million men? Yeah, a few guns would have really helped the Jews stop the tyranny in Germany. Sigh...

England is the most violent country in the European Union. Since the imposition of the country’s gun ban following the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, recorded violent attacks have soared by 77 percent. The violent crime rate there is 2,034 per 100,000 residents.

That's always a fun stats game. Here's the basic facts: 35 fun murders last year in England, compared to 11,000 in this country. Our county is 5 times the size. Do the math.

The "violent attacks" number, other than being not entirely true, is also a completely phony false equivalence.

In England, the weapon of choice to use in a violent crime is a knife.

Yup. In China too, where 22 school kids were stabbed by a psycho on the same day as 20 kids were gunned down at Newtown. Of course, none of the kids in China died. So if you were a parent of a school kid, which psycho would you prefer to have come into the class room?

Maybe government should take our knifes away? Would make eating at the steak house interesting?

Well, we do ban switchblades. But your argument is stupid. People die from cars too. However, MANY FEWER die from cars now that we have severe safety standards for their manufacture, purchase and use. By your reasoning, "Maybe the government should end all speed limit laws, drunk driving laws, manufacture safety regulations, requirement for drivers to purchase insurance etc."?

I refuse to believe the people who read The BRAD BLOG are that stupid. But I keep getting proven wrong

Geez Brad, as fun as it is to push your buttons you seem a bit angry. Blogs are fun for the most part and we get to do that first amendment thing, you know free speech or something like that.

Last time I was here I made the comment that I would protect and uphold the constitution with my life if necessary "as so many before me have" as in its part of the deal to protect and uphold with an added burden for me as I feel I owe it to the countless that already died to protect and uphold for me and for you.

Your reply: "Just be sure you don't run up against any laws while you're out defending what you think are your absolute rights. You may find yourself in prison or even dead in the bargain."

Seriously???

The truth is I don't know what to think anymore. I do know the constitution is worth defending from those that don't understand it and desperately want it written in their favorable viewpoint but luckily its not.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

How in the world can you take this in any other way? The word "regulated" is referencing the militia not the individuals right. I know your more intelligent then that so cut the crud!

I did check on the Hitler reference and it appears he did in fact leverage laws already in place in order to disarm the Jewish people before the holocaust so its classic how you stretch the truth your way and others stretch it their way. Seems he utilized laws already in place. How convenient... Did the fact that the laws already existed make easy for the evil or what?

Its funny that before this topic I was really enjoying this blog but now unfortunately I see you as one of the variations of the mass media not one of the truth seekers I was hopeful you could have been.

One last thought... My grandfather made great sacrifices to bring his family here and became a united states citizen, something he was very proud of. (He really was, I remember the look in his eyes when he talked about it "Proud"... He felt safe with the civil power being armed as did my father and so do I. I honestly do feel my family is safer in a place where the civil power is armed and I have given it lots of thought. So if you really want to live in a place where only the government is armed? and you have NO right to be? Is that really what you want? Let me know, I have family in England and I am sure I could help get you in.

Geez Brad, as fun as it is to push your buttons you seem a bit angry. Blogs are fun for the most part and we get to do that first amendment thing, you know free speech or something like that.

Actually, I let you do that free speech thing here. I have no obligation to do so. This is private property. So a) You're welcome. And b) Sorry to see that you, who claims others don't understand the Constitution, don't even understand it's very first amendment.

I do know the constitution is worth defending from those that don't understand it and desperately want it written in their favorable viewpoint but luckily its not.

Please see point (b) above. If you need any help understanding the First Amendment, let me know. Seems you don't understand it any better than you think you understand the Second Amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

How in the world can you take this in any other way? The word "regulated" is referencing the militia not the individuals right. I know your more intelligent then that so cut the crud!

You don't understand Constitutional law or interpretation of clauses any more than you understand the First or Second Amendment, I see. That's just one of the reasons I suggested you be very careful when defending what you think are your rights. You don't appear to have a clue about them.

I did check on the Hitler reference and it appears he did in fact leverage laws already in place in order to disarm the Jewish people before the holocaust so its classic how you stretch the truth your way and others stretch it their way.

Didn't "stretch it" in the least. But thanks for suggesting otherwise. As to the main issue there, you were lauding a fake quote. Seems you are very easily duped.

Its funny that before this topic I was really enjoying this blog but now unfortunately I see you as one of the variations of the mass media not one of the truth seekers I was hopeful you could have been.

Oh, well.

One last thought... My grandfather made great sacrifices to bring his family here and became a united states citizen, something he was very proud of.

Mine too. Several of them...

So if you really want to live in a place where only the government is armed? and you have NO right to be? Is that really what you want?

It's neither what I want, nor what I have ever argued. But thanks again for creating a straw man and knocking it down! You're awesome at that! Keep up the dumb work!

Well Brad, the fake quote thing is pretty embarrassing and I apologize for polluting your discussion board with that crap. I didn't know that there was a resource like wikiquotes, but I will definitely be using that from now on.

I wish I did have time to research more, I take in a lot of information but I have very little chance to actually vet most of it, though I know that is no excuse.

I want to point out that when I brought up things I read on this site, people denigrated me because they refused to believe there could possibly be any merit to charges of electoral fraud, no matter how much you back up your facts. I did not intend to blame you, but rather others for not keeping an open mind or even caring to read a couple of articles I sent their way.

Gun Control: You are actually right about gun control within the paradigm in which we live, I just don't like this paradigm. I can’t argue that I don’t want it to be hard for psychopaths to get dangerous weapons.

You have posted a link that shows that shows that people cannot be trusted in a crisis situation with weapons. On the other hand, you must admit that armed killers have been stopped by other people with guns in the past. Here is a short list where armed civilians may have at least deterred further violence. I couldn’t vet it all, but most of the links go to Wikipedia or local broadcast news stations so there is some substance to them. http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=32868

I genuinely believe I am a responsible enough person to own a gun, any kind of gun. Why should some very crazy assholes limit my ability to do or own what I want as long as I am not hurting anyone else? I already suspect your answer to this, which is that being part of any society entails sacrifice and common sense, ensuring the greatest common good requires sacrifice, that laws are meant to deter those who would commit actions that are contrary to what society considers acceptable (not those who wouldn’t), that my personal desires or insecurities do not compare to saving even one life if stricter gun regulations would have that effect.

3D Printers: I don't think there is a way to stop the spread of dangerous designs. If that information can be passed digitally, then it will be passed around and widely available. No one has been able to stop IP theft up till now.

Terrorist Watch List: We should err on the side of not accusing people of terrorist activities that have no connection whatsoever with terrorism. Even one bullshit name on that list makes it all suspect, and it destroys people’s lives. If you really want to err on the side of caution, then the government should consider everyone a terrorist and treat them accordingly. Oh wait, we are getting there already! You can see the outlines of that in many obvious ways like massive electronic surveillance, TSA groping children, the NDAA US citizen indefinite detention provision etc.

Machine Guns: I don’t have a problem with this. I still think I could safely own a machine gun without murdering anyone however.

Fukushima: This is a big story that needs to be more widely covered. It is extremely difficult to get solid information on this since the government really isn’t doing its job to monitor the spread of this radiation, or if it is it isn’t sharing its info. I would love to send you a few links (by email) at a later date. A wonderful site to cover nuclear news in Japan as well as current events here (both the effect of Fukushima and problems with our own nuclear facilities) is “enenews” dot com. The fact is this disaster is continuing, the site is still spewing radiation on a daily basis for almost 2 years, that there is no plan to actually contain the disaster any time soon, and that air and ocean currents are bringing the radioactive isotopes across the US and world, and that this has been confirmed since it is possible to track some isotopes specifically produced by the Fukushima site. Millions might die over the years, in and outside of Japan. But you’re right, it isn’t as pressing as the current gun death statistics.

Guns stopping tyranny: Again you are probably right that we couldn’t really stop the government from killing us, with or without guns. Just wondering if you have anything to comment on with the government purchasing through DHS and other agencies millions of rounds of hollow point ammo, which is expressly illegal both for use domestically and internationally. Why is the government doing this? Why does the SSA need to buy several hundred thousand rounds of hollow point ammunition? I find it hard to ascribe any rational/moral/legal explanation for this. Maybe we can’t stop them, but it’s pretty blatant the government wants to be able to stop us. Please let me know if this story is another NRA plant.

NRA Scamming: I do take issue with the implication that my distrust of government is somehow planted in my brain by the NRA. I am sure the NRA would dispute your assertions that massive electoral fraud has repeatedly taken place in this country since at least 2000, but that is something you have amply documented so it would just be putting blinders on to deny it.

Similarly, not every bit of information I have ever read comes from a two bit webpage with fake quotes (I am here on BRad after all). The reality is that it doesn’t take 100 allegations of government misdeeds for me to completely distrust it at its core. Start with electoral fraud, move on to unpunished well known financial fraud (LIBOR anyone?), look at the campaign contributions to politicians and where they come from, a couple fake terrorist arrests, the Patriot Act, seemingly unlimited bailouts of banks which are basically criminal organizations, regulatory capture, revolving doors etc. This is all without bringing up other things like the questions surrounding the 9/11 attack, where we weren’t remotely told the truth by the government.

If the NRA wants people to believe that the government is corrupt and dangerous, then they are actually doing a public service in my opinion. Whether or not guns are the answer to anything, people need to wake up to the fact that we are being screwed, and hopefully find a peace

If we are the government as you say, then we are fucking ourselves pretty badly over and over again, and that is just sad.

Treason: It isn’t treason to oppose, by any means, a government which does not follow the constitution which gives it it’s mandate. Our government doesn’t, so all bets are off. There is no legitimate government if it passes laws but selectively chooses which ones will apply to it and the people who run it.

Glenn Beck/Alex Jones: Those guys suck. I won’t argue there. But I don’t think you can easily dismiss the idea of massive economic collapse or civil unrest. Read Paul Craig Roberts, Zero Hedge, Gerald Celente. It’s not like there isn’t historical precedent for this kind of thing. Do you believe that the government has been at all responsible enough to actually prevent these things from happening?

Without a massive change in consciousness and a cleaning up of the government by honorable people, with punishment for the wrongdoers, we will see some worse economic times to come (probably will in any case), which may or may not be followed by civil unrest. But you’re right, non military style guns can protect us well enough from the average desperate Joe, but nothing would likely protect us from a determined effort by the government to cause harm. BTW, the apocalypse is already well armed!

Soviet Union: I am suggesting that the tanks are much less likely to come out in the first place if there is a well armed population, the bigger the guns the bigger the deterrent. It’s not gullibility. You can’t prove otherwise and neither can I.

Laws: I don’t believe we shouldn’t have laws, I just don’t think that I should have to follow any laws that I don’t make sense when applied to me. If these laws protect me from others or others from me, like drunk driving laws, great. If they attempt to protect me from myself, forget it. Crazy, maybe. I’ve never hurt another person on purpose (besides punching someone in the seventh grade), and I don’t ever intend to. Do I need laws to have values and follow them, no. Do some other people, apparently so and that is also sad.

Again I apologize for the bad quotes and appreciate your time and responses.

" If the NRA wants people to believe that the government is corrupt and dangerous, then they are actually doing a public service in my opinion. Whether or not guns are the answer to anything, people need to wake up to the fact that we are being screwed, and hopefully find a peace ...."